14-005479PL Pam Stewart, As Commissioner Of Education vs. Miles Madison Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, June 5, 2015.

Summary: Respondent sent inappropriate texts to newly hired teacher without her permission and threatened to expose private emails and photos of another teacher to get her to change her investigative statement. Recommend suspension, probation, reprimand, and fine.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF

EDUCATION,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 14 - 5479PL

MILES MADISON,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Administrative Law Judge Lisa Shearer Nelson conducted a

disputed - fact hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes (2014), by video teleconference with sites in Pensacola

and Talla ha ssee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: J. David Holder, Esquire

J. Davi d Holder, P.A.

387 Lakeside Drive

Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435

For Respondent: Branden M. Vicari, Esquire

Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A.

Suite 110

29605 U.S. Highway North

Clearwater, Florida 33761

STATEMENT OF THE ISS UE

The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated

sections 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2013) , and

Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A - 10.081(4)(c), (5)(d),

(5)(f) , and (5)(o) , and if so, what penalty would be

appropriate.

PRELIMIN ARY STATEMENT

On July 15, 2014, Petitioner, Pam Stewart as Commissioner

of Education (Petitioner or the Commissioner), filed an

Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Miles Madison

(Mr. Madison or Respondent), alleging that he violated the

provisions of sections 1012.795(1)(g) and (j) , and rules 6A -

10.081(4)(c), (5)(d), (5)(f) , and (5)(o) . The charges were

based upon RespondentÓs interactions with female members of the

faculty at Hellen Caro Elementary School (HCES). On August 11,

2014, Respondent, through counsel, executed an Election of

Rights form disputing the allegations in the Administrative

Complaint and requesting a hearing pursuant to section

120.57(1). On November 18, 2014, Petitioner referred the case

to the Division of Administrative Hea rings for assignment of an

administrative law judge.

The case was originally s cheduled for hearing on

January 12, 2015. The matter was continued twice, and

ultimately the hearing was conducted on March 25, 2015. The

parties filed a Joint Pre - hearing Stat ement that included

stipulated facts which, where relevant, have been incorporated

into the findings of fact below. At hearing, Petitioner

presented the testimony of Amanda Moore, principal of HCES;

Amanda Cravatt, Tara Papillion, and Daniela Brao, teache rs at

HCES; Gary Marsh, the Escambia County School District (District)

investigator; and Dr. Alan Scott, District Assistant

Superintendent for Human Resources. PetitionerÓs Exhibits 1 - 18

were admitted into evidence, with the caveat that hearsay within

the documents would not be used to support a finding of fact

unless the hearsay supported or corroborated other admissible

evidence presented at hearing. Respondent testified on his own

behalf but presented no exhibits.

The two - volume Transcript of the pro ceedings was filed with

the Division on April 10, 2015. At the request of Petitioner,

the deadline for filing proposed recommended orders was extended

to April 30, 2015. Both parties timely filed Proposed

Recommended Orders which have been carefully cons idered in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented

at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and

on the entire record of this proceeding, the following finding s

of fact are made:

1. Respondent holds Florida EducatorÓs Certificate number

1036252, covering the areas of elementary education, middle

grades - integrated curriculum, physical education, and reading.

RespondentÓs certificate is valid through June 30, 20 17.

2. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent

was employed as a fourth - grade teacher at HCES. He began

working at HCES shortly after the beginning of the school year

in the fall of 2009. When he started working at HCES and for

part of th e time relevant to this case, he was married to Tammy

Madison, who was teaching and continues to teach at HCES as a

kindergarten teacher. According to Mr. Madison, they separated

in late 2011 and he moved out. Both continued to teach at HCES

until Respon dentÓs transfer in January 2014 .

3. None of the allegations giving rise to this proceeding

are based upon alleged shortcomings in the performance of

Mr. MadisonÓs duties in the classroom.

4. In January 2011, Amanda Cravatt began teaching at HCES

as a lo ng - term substitute teacher in the first grade. She had

performed her student teaching at HCES and worked in a classroom

with Lori Farish. Ms. Cravatt started the school year in August

2011 , team teaching with Ms. Farish , but at some point during

the scho ol year was assigned her own class. Ms. Cravatt got

married in April 2011. She did not know Mr. Madison when she

started teaching at HCES, and prior to the 2011 - 2012 school

year, had no contact with him. She has apparently flourished in

the classroom, b ecause for the 2013 - 2014 school year, she was

one of the top five teachers in the District.

5. On or about April 5, 2012, Mr. Madison sent Ms. Cravatt

an e - mail on the District Groupwise e - mail system, inquiring

about her last name. Ms. Cravatt did not s olicit the e - mail,

but continued the communication with him. At least one of the

emails sent to her on Groupwise by Mr. Madison referred to her

as a Ðhot woman.Ñ Ms. Cravatt was unsure when Mr. Madison sent

her the first e - mail, but did not believe the o ne about her name

was the first one. She provided him her personal e - mail account

address because she knew some of the e - mails were not

appropriate to send through the e - mail system.

6. Over a time period comprising approximately two weeks,

the nature of the e - mails Mr. Madison and Ms. Cravatt exchanged

intensifie d , including some sexually - explicit text and nude

photos. Mr. Madison wanted a sexual relationship with

Ms. Cravatt and was very persistent. Despite the fact that they

were both legally married , Ms. Cravatt agreed to meet with

Mr. Madison on or about April 21, 2012, after attending a family

wedding. She met Mr. Madison at a Publix in Perdido Key, and

they drove in her car to a parking lot across the street. The

two of them got in the back seat of her car and had sexual

intercourse. Afterwards, she dropped him off in the Publix

parking lot and went home.

7. The accounts given with respect to this encounter are

very different. Ms. Cravatt maintains that she went with the

purpose of talking to Mr. Madison and getting to know him

better. She claims that he was very persistent: that she did

not want to have sex and told him so, but that he pressured her

to do so. She thought that by going ahead and having sex with

him, she could Ðget out of the situation.Ñ

8. Mr. Madison, on the other hand, contends that from the

very beginning the relationship was all about sex: ÐI mean,

thatÓs what she and I Î thatÓs what it was all about. It was no

friendship. It was our friendship conversation wa s brie fly in

e - mails but it was all sexual. We met under the knowledge that

we were going to have sex.Ñ

9. The accounts concerning the termination of the

relationship are equally divergen t. Mr. Madison claims that

Ms. Cravatt wanted the relationship to contin ue and that he did

not, and that Ms. CravattÓs feelings were hurt when he ended the

relationship. She, on the other hand, testified that she wanted

to put the whole thing behind her and that he continued to

pressure her to meet again. She was relieved th at the school

year was almost over. She sent him an e - mail saying she would

not see him again, and admitted calling him an ass and a jerk,

because he was so persistent. She asked him to destroy the

pictures she had sent him and both testified that they a greed to

keep the encounter between themselves. Ms. Cravatt destroyed

the photos that Mr. Madison sent her and thought he had agreed

to destroy the ones of her.

10. Neither account is particularly credible, and the

truth about the progression of the enco unter is probably

somewhere between the two accounts. However, the more credible

evidence indicates that both were willing partners, but that

Ms. Cravatt quickly regretted the incident. The more persuasive

testimony also supports a finding that Ms. Crava tt was

embarrassed and wanted to distance herself from the incident.

11. At some point, Ms. Cravatt showed some of the e - mails

sent through Groupwise to her co - teacher, Ms. Farish. On or

about May 11 or 12, 2012, Ms. Farish spoke to Amanda Moore, the

pri ncipal for HCES, about the e - mails from Mr. Madison to

Ms. Cravatt because of the perso nal nature of the content.

Ms. Moore spoke to both Mr. Madison and Ms. Cravatt about the

e - mails and told both of them that they wer e not to continue on

the District G roupwise system. 1/

12. When Ms. Moore spoke with Ms. Cravatt, Ms. Cravatt

seemed to her to be concerned about the emails as well.

Ms. Moore made it clear that the e - mails through Groupwise could

not continue, but did not ask Ms. Cravatt about anything be yond

the e - mails, and Ms. Cravatt did not volunteer anything.

13. When Ms. Moore asked Mr. Madison about the e - mails, he

told her he was not going to share his personal life with her,

but that it was a Ðtwo - way thing.Ñ Ms. Moore stated that

e - mails on G roupwise were happening on school grounds, and they

w ere not going to continue. She also addressed the fact that

his wife worked at HCES at the time these e - mails were sent, and

the e - mails were disrespectful to his wife. She war ned

Mr. Madison that if t he e - mails continued, she would start

forma l disciplinary procedures. Mr. Madison indicated that he

understood and there were no further incidents that year.

14. In the spring of the 2012 - 2013 school year, however,

rumors were swirling through the facult y about Mr. MadisonÓs

alleged relationship with a married third - grade teacher at HCES,

Ms. Manthei. 2/ The rumors made things uncomfortable at school

because, as stated by Ms. Moore, both Madisons and Ms. Manthei

were on the same faculty, and people were b eginning to Ðtake

sides.Ñ Both Ms. Manthei and Mr. Madison applied for priority

transfers to other schools. Ms. Manthei was successful in

obtaining a transfer and left HCES after the spring of 2013 to

work at Ferry Pass Middle School. Mr. Madison was no t

successful in obtaining a transfer at that point, and he and

Tammy Madison both continued to work at HCES at the beginning of

the 2013 - 2014 school year.

15. On July 10, 2013, the Ma disonsÓ divorce was final.

Mr. Madison wa s 43 years old at this point.

1 6. In August of 2013, Daniela Brao began teaching third

grade at HCES. Ms. Brao was 22 years old, and had just

graduated from the University of West Florida. She is a petite,

very attractive young woman. This was her first teaching job,

and she was liv ing alone, away from her family and friends . She

did not know anyone at HCES before she began working there, but

wanted to teach at HCES because of its excellent reputation in

the District.

17. Ms. Brao taught a different grade , in a different part

of th e school, and had no students in common with Mr. Madison .

She only knew who Mr. Madison was because of faculty meetings

and seeing him around school. Tara Papillion, another third -

grade teacher with approximately six yearsÓ experience who began

at HCES i n the fall of 2012, was assigned as her mentor teacher.

Ms. Papillion was the person Ms. Brao could consult about any

questions she had as a new teacher at the school.

18. Each year, HCES publishes an emergency phone list to

members of the faculty and sta ff. The emergency ph one list is

published so that faculty and staff can reach each other in

times of emergency, such as severe weather. Information about

the use of the emergency telephone list is contained in the

required reading materials that each tea cher is expected to

review at the beginning of the school year. Mr. Madison signed

a certification on August 29, 2013, that he reviewed the

required reading materials.

19. On September 13, 2013, Ms. Brao was waiting to pick up

her students from the music portable, which was behind her

classroom. Mr. Madison came up to Ms. Brao and asked if she was

Cuban or Puerto Rican. Ms. Brao was taken aback because she had

never spoken to him before. She replied that she was

Venezuelan. Mr. Madison laughed and sai d something along the

lines of Ðoh, alright, at least I didnÓt call you Mexican.Ñ She

found the whole incident confusing, because it was her first

encounter with him, and she had no real reason based on work

assignments to have any interaction wit h him.

20. Later in the day, Mr. Madison sent her an apology

through e - mail, saying he should not have assumed that she could

only be Cuban or Puerto Rican and that he could have just asked

what her latin background was. Ms. Brao responded by telling

Mr. Madiso n not to worry about it. Both e - mails were on the

District Groupwise system.

21. On Monday, September 16, 2013, the school emergency

phone list was published.

22. Mr. Madison used the eme rgency phone list to obtain

Ms. BraoÓs personal cell phone number. The next day, he texted

her, saying:

ms. brao, this is miles m adison from

school. i apologize for texting you

without your permission but i rarely run

into you at school to ask. i just want to

know if you received more than 2 emails

from me? im just cu rious because i tried

to retract two. Thanks.

23. Ms. Brao responded by saying, ÐHi, no just the one! I

replied to it back on Friday. Anyways no worries about the

question, no offense taken!Ñ Respondent replied by stating,

Ok thanks. i retracted t wo i sent friday

night. i was curious to know if the

retract button really worked

24. Ms. Brao did not respond. She did not ask for or

expect Respondent to text her, and did not know anything about

him except that his wife also worked at HCES. She th ought it

was strange that he would text her after she had e - mailed him

back.

25. On September 26, 2013, at 4:24 p.m., Respondent texted

Ms. Brao again, saying,

are you mad or upset? (no response)

are you mad or upset? (no response)

are you not even a little curious? (no

response)

are you mad or upset? You look angry when

i pass

26. Ms. Brao responded about an hour later, saying,

Ð[t]hat must just be my face at the time. Haha.Ñ Respondent

texted her again , saying, Ðso that would mean you are no t angry

with me for contacting you? i did everything i could not to.Ñ

27. Ms. Brao did not respond. She considered the texts

inappropriate and they made her uncomfortable. She did not

understand why he was sending them: she did not send texts to

other teachers after hours unless there was an emergency, and i n

addition, she was hearing rumors about Madison and his

relationship with a previous teacher at the school who had

transferred. Ms. Brao did not want to get caught up in a

situation with a man she believed to be married and whose wife

was still working at the same school.

28. At some point Ms. Brao mentioned the texts to

Ms. Papillion, who initially told her not to worry about them.

However, on October 28, 2013, she received another series of

t exts that increased her discomfort. That afternoon, Respondent

texted her saying,

do you have any interest at all? i would

greatly appreciate a reply either yes or

no. i need to know so i can keep you on my

mind or get you off.

with sugar on top, plea se say something

29. Ms. Brao replied,

No IÓm sorry IÓm a very private person. I

prefer to keep my private life separate

from my career.

30. While reasonable people would consider her response to

be abundantly clear, Mr. Madison did not get the mes sage. He

responded:

thank you. i do think you are very

beautiful and it is nice to see you

everyday. a perfect and let me down easy

reply. everything is cool

31. Ms. Brao responded, Ðthank you, see you at school.Ñ

While this text should have ended the exchange , Mr. Madison was

undeterred, and texted again:

hey, i just realized i am a private person

too. do you have an exception for that?

just trying a little harder.

32. Ms. Brao responded by saying, Ð[n]o, IÓm sorry also I

am already in a relat ionship.Ñ She was not actually in a

relationship, but wanted him to leave her alone. Then the

following text exchange occurred:

i figured that. how could you

not be?

i hope you dont feel weird seeing

me at school knowing what you

know. i thought i had a 1 in a

million shot for you and i was

happy with those odds

i apologize for this, i think

about you too much and then drink

and so this. i should know

better but it is the way you

look.

Please stop texting me.

sorry no more

33. Ms. Brao was very ups et by the texts, and this final

exchange really bothered her. She decided to say something to

her principal about them, and despite being injured in a car

accident the following morning, went to school afterwards in

order to speak to Ms. Moore. M s. Brao showed the texts to

Ms. Papillion and told her th at she was going to talk to

Ms. Moore. Ms. Papillion offered to go with her and Ms. Brao

readily agreed: she had at this point been employed by the

school a scant two months and was very nervous about comp laining

to her boss about the behavior of another teacher.

34. Ms. Papillion had received some Facebook messages from

Respondent that she found odd, but did not consider them to be

on the level of the texts Ms. Brao received. 3/ Her primary

purpose for going with Ms. Brao to see Ms. Moore was to provide

emotional support.

35. Ms. Brao was visibly upset about the texts when she

spoke to Ms. Moore . She did not know Respondent well enough to

know how to take his messages. Ms. Moore called Keith Leona rd,

Director of Human Resources for the District, because she wanted

to make sure that she was taking the necessary steps to have a

positive working environment. Mr. Leonard came to the school

and s poke with both Ms. Brao and Ms. Papillion, read the

Faceb ook posts and cell phone texts, and assigned the District

investigator, Gary Marsh, to investigate further. Mr. Leonard

asked Ms. Moore whether there w ere any other concerns, and

Ms. Moore told him about the e - mail issue concerning Mr. Madison

and Ms. Cra vatt from 2012. Ms. Moore then went to Ms. Cravatt

and told her that Mr. Marsh would be talking with her and that

Ms. Moore wanted her to share with him the incident with

Mr. Madison.

36. At this point, Ms. Moore did not know that there had

been any typ e of sexual encoun ter or relationship between

Mr. Madison and Ms. Cravatt. She only knew about the e - mails

exchanged on Groupwise about which she had counseled both

teachers in 2012.

37. Mr. Marsh came to the school and spoke with Ms. Brao,

Ms. Papillio n, Ms. Cravatt, and Mr. Madison. Ms. Brao and

Ms. Papillion spoke to Mr . Marsh about the texts and

Ms. Papillion relayed the contents of the Facebook messages she

received.

38. Being question ed by Mr. Marsh placed Ms. Cravatt in a

difficult situation. She had agreed to keep the encounter with

Mr. Madison to herself, and true to that agreement, she did not

reveal to Mr. Marsh that she had any relationship or encounter

with Mr. Marsh. She did acknowledge the Groupwise e - mails but

did not indicate that there were any others. In other words,

she answered only those questions asked of her. In so doing,

she stated that in 2012 , Mr. Madison had e - mailed her through

Groupwise and made references to her being a Ðhot woman,Ñ

referenced being intoxicated when he was writing to her, and

questioned whether she was a newlywed or divorced. These were

true statements. She told Mr. Marsh that RespondentÓs contacts

were highly inappropriate (which they were, especially on a

school district e - mail system) , as she is married and did not

indicate that she wanted further contact with him. She also

stated that she still feels uncomfortable around Respondent when

they are together at school.

39. While Ms. CravattÓs answers are most likely accurate

statements in respon se to the questions asked of her, she knew

when making them that they did not represent the totality of the

interactions she had with Mr. Madison . Given the details left

unstated, the statements were misleading. However, they were

not necessarily untruth ful. In all likelihood, she did not want

to be around him and did not want further contact with him,

although her feelings were not necessarily as a result of the

Groupwise e - mails.

40. Mr. Marsh also interviewed Mr. Madison, and recorded

the interview. Respondent acknowledged both the texts and the

Facebook messages, admitted that Ms. Brao did not initiate any

contact or discussion with him , and that he obtained her

personal cell number from the school telephone tree to make

initial contact with her. However, he did not feel that his

text messages were inappropriate, and noted that he stopped

texting her when she asked him to stop.

41. Mr. MadisonÓs subjective view that the text messages

were not inappropriate is not credible and is rejected.

Ms. Br ao stated that the messages were Ðcreeping her outÑ and

her view is more than reasonable. Respondent was employed at

HCES to teach fourth grade, not to use the female faculty as his

personal dating service . Moreover, despite his claim that the

texts were not inappropriate, the language he used in the text

indicates that he knew better: he even apologized up front for

texting her without her permission.

42. Moreover, Mr. Madison is not a child. By any

objective standard, he should have know n that conta cting a young

woman over 20 years his junior with whom he has no prior

relationship, using her personal cell phone number that she did

not give him permission to use, is, standing alone,

questionable. Continuing to text her when she gave him

absolutely no encouragement (and even told him that she was a

private person who did not want to mix her professional and

private lives) was inappropriate. To text her and reference her

looks, state that he cannot stop thinking about her, and state

that he thinks abou t her when he drinks is over the top.

Moreover, Respondent admitted th at he was pre - occupied with

Ms. Brao , wanted to ask her out and was more or less fantasizing

a relationship or hoping for one, and could not Ðread her

silence.Ñ Contrary to his claims, Ms. BraoÓs reaction was quite

clear.

43. It is true that Mr. Madison did not seek to intimidate

or threaten Ms. Brao at school and she did not know of any

attempt on his part to approach her outside of school other than

the texts. However, the texts an d their content frightened her.

As she stated, because of the rumors at school about his past

relationships, and the fact that she did not know him

personally, she did not know what he was capable of doing ,

especially given his statement that he thinks of her when he

drinks . As a result, she was concerned for her safety and

purchased pepper spray for her protection. She began avoiding

Respondent in the halls; checked and locked her classroom each

time she entered or exited it; altered her schedule to lea ve

school immediately after the bell; and altered her lunch

schedule, all in an effort to avoid contact with Respondent.

She quit wearing makeup and wore looser clothing in an effort to

look less attractive. Her concerns intensified after she met

with Mr . Marsh, and being informed that Resp ondent was going to

be disciplin ed because of his behavior toward he r made her feel

more vulnerable , not knowing whether he would retaliate again st

her for complaining about his behavior .

44. After compl etion of his i nvestigation, Mr. Marsh

presented the information gathered to the District Disciplinary

Committee, who then , consistent with District policy and

practice, made a recommendation to the Superintendent concerning

what, if any, discipline should be imposed . I t wa s determined

that a letter of reprimand would be appropriate.

45. On December 5, 2013, Mr. Madison received a Notice of

Proposed Disciplinary Action and was directed to appear at

Dr. Alan ScottÓs office on Monday, December 9, 2013, and advised

that he could have a union investigator present at the meeting.

The Notice indicated that he was being provided a copy of

information identifying specifically the offense or misconduct

involved, as well as an accounting of the offense including

times, dates, witnesses, and any other information presently

available. It is not clear from the Notice whether the

information was provided tha t day, or was provided when

Mr. Madison met with Dr. Scott on December 9.

46. On December 9, 2013, Respondent was given a l etter of

reprimand by Dr. Scott. The letter states in pertinent part:

The School District of Escambia County

learned of allegations regarding you

sending inappropriate messages to female

co - workers at Hellen Caro Elementary

School. In accordance with our contractual

obligations you were provided due notice

and the opportunity to respond to the

allegations.

Based on the investigation, including the

meeting with you, the District finds you

engaged in sending inappropriate and

unprofessional messages to fem ale co -

workers. These messages were considered to

be harassing in nature and created an

atmosphere of fear when directed at a newly

hired female teacher. The District also

found that you inappropriately used the

phone tree directory to contact the newly

employed teacher without her consent for

contact in a non - emergency situation.

Based on the above findings, the District

concluded your conduct was unprofessional,

inappropriate and displayed a disregard for

professional standards. The District also

conc luded that your behavior lacked any

positive educational value. Your conduct

adversely affects your ability to work in a

cohesive nature with fellow co - workers at

Hellen Caro Elementary School. The

District believes that, as a teacher, you

are required t o exercise a measure of

leadership beyond reproach. By your

actions, you have lessened the reputation

of all who practice the profession. The

profession cannot condone your actions, nor

can the public, who we serve.

47. Respondent did not grieve the re primand or request a

hearing to contest the discipline. However, when he received

the information compiled through Mr. MarshÓs investigation,

including the witness statements, he believed that Ms. Cravatt

had gone forward to complain about him. He consid ered this a

betrayal of their agreement and it made him angry. As a result ,

on December 10, 2013, he e - mailed Ms. Moore and asked to speak

to her. She was attending meetings off campus and responded

that she would see him upon her return the next day.

48 . Mr. Madison met with Ms. Moore on December 11, 2013.

At that time he apologized to her for the embarrassment he was

causing the District, and indicated that he was trying to make

things right and do a good job in the classroom. She in turn

shared her expectations for him in teaching his students on a

professional level. Mr. Madison told Ms. Moore that he felt he

was being unfairly accused by M s. Brao, Ms. Papillion, and

Ms. Cravatt: he said he and Ms. Pa pillion were only friends,

and that he wanted t o get to know Ms. Brao better and thought

she might be interested in him . He recognized he should not

have used the emergency telephone tree to get her telephone

number, and stopped texting her when she asked him to. With

res pect to Ms. Cravatt, he told Ms. Moore that he was very upset

when he learned that Ms. Cravatt was a part of this, because

they had a relationship in the past with an understanding that

they would protect each other and not hurt each other or let it

get out. He felt that Ms. Cravatt had broken that promise and

he wanted his name cleared.

49. Mr. Madison then handed to Ms. Moore a piece of paper

he had prepared on his computer the day before, and that was

admitted into evidence as PetitionerÓs Exhibit 3. The document

stated:

I have multiple pictures of Cravatt naked

that she sent me during the month of April,

2012.

- one is of her posing in a bathroom fully

naked

- one is of her bending over and taking a

picture of her rear using the mirror.

- one is of her sunbathing naked (face not

shown), Caesarean scar is visible.

- one is of her sunbathing at the purple

parrot just showing her body and feet.

Cravatt made a false statement to Gary

Marsh stating that she received what she

felt was inappropriate messages and that

she felt uncomfort able being around me at

school. She and Ms. Farrish also conspired

or Cravatt alone insinuated that I sent her

flowers and a poem during the month of May

2012.

Cravatt and I had sex on one occasion in

the back of her car behind the True Value

in Perdido Key in April 2012. She sent me

an email later that I felt was threatening

and i said that we were not going to see

each other again. She called me an Ðass

and a jerkÑ and that was the last contact I

had with her.

I have sexual emails that she and I

exch anged and have printed all pictures of

her.

50. Below this text at the bottom of the paper were three

short paragraphs that were marked through with blue magic marker

but completely readable. Those paragraphs read:

I want Cravatt to contact Mr. Marsh a t 850 -

439 - 2220 in the presence of Mrs. Moore and

she can leave a message if he does not

answer. I want her to admit that she lied

about her statement.

When Mr. Marsh contacts me stating that he

received this clarification, then I will

not pursue this mat ter.

If she refuses, then the pictures and the

e - mails will be delivered to the District.

51. Respondent claims that after he cooled off, he decided

that he did not want the pictures to go to the District and only

wanted Ms. Moore to get Ms. Cravatt to t ell the truth. He

claims he marked through the last few paragraphs because he did

not want her to follow through with what he had written there,

and that when Ms. Moore a sked if he wanted the paper back, he

said to either burn it or give it back to him. Ms. Moore, on

the other hand, testified that Mr. Madison told her that he had

compromising pictures of Ms. Cravatt and that i f Ms. Cravatt did

not go to Mr. Marsh and retract her statement, he was going to

send the pictures and e - mails to the District. He asked her if

she wanted to see the pictures, and she declined. Ms. Moore

read the document and asked Respondent several times if the

statements were true and if he was sure he wanted her to go to

Ms. Cravatt and he said yes.

52. Ms. MooreÓs testimony i s credited. She was candid,

consistent, and had no agenda other than to maintain a

professional atmosphere at HCES. Conversely , Respondent did not

give Ms. Moore PetitionerÓs Exhibit 3 immediately. He wrote it

the day before he gave it to Ms. Moore and b y his own testimony ,

he had cooled down before seeing her. It would have been a

simple matter to delete the final paragraphs from the

typewritten document before giving it to Ms. Moore. If he did

not have access to the computer, he could have cut or tor n off

the bottom of the page. Instead, he marked through the

documents so that they remained legible. Moreover, as is found

below, his statements made during the ensuing investigation were

consistent with the sentiment expressed in those final

paragraphs , and at least at the time he gave t he document to

Ms. Moore, he did want her to follow through with the District .

It is more likely that he changed his mind , if at all, after

giving Ms. Moore the document.

53. The afternoon of De cember 11, Ms. Moore cal led

Ms. Cravatt to her office and showed her the document Respondent

had prepared. Ms. Cravatt denied the statements Respondent had

documented. Ms. Moore then called Mr. Leonard at the District

and reported the dayÓs events, sent hi s office a copy of

Pet itionerÓs Exhibit 3 at his request, and was told Mr. Marsh

would contact her. December 11 was the first that Ms. Moore was

aware that there were allegations that Ms. Cravatt had previous

personal contact with Mr. Madison beyond the Groupwise e - mails.

54. The next morning, December 12, Ms. Cravatt came to

Ms . MooreÓs office at approximately 7:00 a.m. She was crying

and very upset, and wante d to speak with Mr. Marsh. Ms. Moore

determined that Ms. Cravatt was not going to be able teach her

class and arrang ed for a substitute.

55. Mr. Marsh arrived at HCES at approximately 9:00 a.m.

Ms. Cravatt requested to meet with him privately and they spoke

in the school professional librar y. After about 45 minutes,

Mr. Marsh asked that Ms. Moore join them. At tha t point,

Ms. Cravatt told Ms. Moore, ÐyouÓre not going to be happy with

me, but I am going to admit to all of this on paper, but itÓs

not true.Ñ Ms. Cravatt told Ms. Moore that she just wanted it

all to stop. At that point, Mr. Marsh took Ms. CravattÓs s worn

statement in which she admitted to having sent the pictures and

sexual e - mails to Mr. Madison, as well as to having sex with

him. When the tape was turned off for the recorded interview,

however, Ms. Cravatt continued to deny that she had a

relations hip with Mr. Madison. 4/ She did not want to admit to

the allegations to Ms. Moore because it was very embarrassing to

her and she wanted to keep her private life and her career

separate.

56. On Friday, December 13, 2013, both Ms. Cravatt and

Mr. Madison were suspended with pay pending completion of an

investigation by Mr. Marsh. As stated by Dr. Scott, Ð[p]art of

what we have to do is to protect the educational process at the

school. The behavior of adults should not interfere with what

weÓre trying to do with the young students at the school . . . .

The situation at the school was untenable. It was a difficult

environment. Some of the female teachers were very

uncomfortable there.Ñ

57. As part of the investigation, Mr. Madison was

interview ed twice : once on December 12, 2013 , and again on

December 20, 2013. The summar ies of the recorded interviews

include the following:

[ Dece mber 12, 2013]

2. In synopsis, Madison was advised he was

being interviewed as a witness who had

provided allegations to Moo re. In

discussion, Madison reported having a

consensual sexual relationship with Amanda

C r avatt in April, 2012; noting he had both

pictures and emails as evidence of their

relationship. He explained this was their

only liaison, and that they had agreed t o

never discuss their liaison again and to

delete anything between them. However,

after reading the information provided by

Cravatt in a prior investigation, he felt

it was necessary to provide this

information to Moore so she could speak

with Cravatt and have her tell the truth.

He added this was a chance for Cravatt to

make things right and admit she lied.

3. In further discussion, Madison declined

multiple requests to provide the referenced

photographs and other documents for review

in support of his allegations; stating he

was keeping his word with Cravatt to not

tell anyone about their relationship.

Madison also stated the referenced

photographs were his security to keep

either her or her husband from doing any

harm to him. He noted that if he giv es up

the photographs, then he has nothing;

adding he wanted her to worry for the rest

of her life .

4. Madison feels his written comments are

not extortion, noting he did not want to

hurt either her or her family; only to

prove that her comments were fal se.

5. At the conclusion of the interview

[Madison] /5 attempted to take back the

document previously given to Moore;

claiming it was only meant for Moore to

see.

[December 20, 2013]

1. On this date, Miles Madison, Teacher,

Hellen Caro Elementary Schoo l (HCES) was

interviewed regarding this investigation,

specific to his allegations that A. Cravatt

had provided false information during a

prior investigation. Madison was

accompanied by Bill Vincent, Union

Representative . . . .

2. In synopsis, Madison stated his

intentions were not to make any

ÐallegationsÑ, but rather provide the

information to Ms. Moore, Principal, HCES

so she could address them with Ms. Cravatt.

Madison fel t there had been an ÐinjusticeÑ;

as the letter [was] given to Moore only to

address his thoughts about what he felt to

be incorrect statements by Cravatt. In

further discussions, Madison stated only he

can interpret what is meant by his

comments, as that document was to be used

by Moore to get facts straight with

Cravatt. In add ition, he requested Moore

destroy the document after she spoke with

Cravatt.

3. Madison also stated that he had no

expectations of any specific outcome, but

then stated that her comments were a lie

and he wanted them removed from the

records. He also wa nted her to know that

he will always have the referenced

pictures , but denied he would use the

pictures against her. (Emphasis add ed.)

58. Mr. Madison admitted at hearing that on December 12 he

told Mr. Marsh he wanted Ms. Cravatt to be aware he had the

photographs and for her to worry for the rest of her life, and

that on December 20 he stated he wanted her to know that he will

always have those pictures for future reference, yet denies

threatening her, saying that he made at least one of those

statemen ts in anger. RespondentÓs denial is not credible.

59. On January 8, 2014, Respondent was notified that his

suspension with pay was lifted and he could return to work the

following day. The decision was made, however, that he should

not return to HCES, a nd he was transferred to Ferry Pass Middle

School. Ms. Cravatt returned to her classroom at HCES after the

Christmas break. RespondentÓs transfer from HCES made a

significant difference in Ms. BraoÓs ability to function as a

teacher. As she stated, she felt like she could breathe and it

was a relief not to worry about Respondent.

60. Respondent was also n otified by letter dated

January 8, 2014, that the Superintendent intended to recommend

to the School Board that he be suspended for three days without

pay, beginning January 22, 2014. The letter provided him a

point of entry to challenge the School BoardÓs decision.

61. The School Board approved the recommendation that

Respondent be suspended for three days without pay, and he was

notified by letter da ted January 22, 2014. Mr. Madison did not

challenge the suspension and presently teaches at Ferry Pass

Middle School.

62. Respondent expressed no real remorse for his actions,

and d oes not seem to comprehend that he ha s done anything wrong.

He does no t believe that Ms. Brao and Ms. Papillion were

uncomfortable with him at any time. He continued to express

anger toward Ms. Cravatt and consider s himself to be a victim

with respect to the statements she made to Mr. Marsh in the

first investigation. Desp ite being told repeatedly that she had

never gone to Ms. Moore to complain about him, and was

questioned as a result of Ms. FarishÓs original report to

Ms. Moore and Ms. MooreÓs report to Mr. Leonard, he insisted

that Ms. Cravatt had orchestrated the compl aints regarding his

e - mails to h er . Even assuming that his assumptions were

correct, which they are not, his actions would not be justified.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

6 3 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and the p arties to this

action in accordance with sections 120.569 and 120.57(1) ,

Florida Statutes (2014) .

6 4 . This is a proceeding in which Petitioner seeks to

discipline Respondent's educator certification. Because

disciplinary proceedings are considered penal in nature,

Petitioner is re quired to prove the allegations in the

Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence.

Dep't of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932

(Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

6 5 . Clear and convincing evidence Ðrequires more proof

than a Òpreponderance of the evidenceÓ but less than Òbeyond and

to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.ÓÑ In re Graziano , 696

So. 2d 744, 753 (Fla. 1997). As stated by the Florida Supreme

Court:

Cle ar and convincing evidence requires that

the evidence must be found to be credible;

the facts to which the witnesses testify

must be distinctly remembered; the testimony

must be precise and lacking in confusion as

to the facts in issue. The evidence must be

of such a weight that it produces in the

mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or

conviction, without hesitancy, as to the

truth of the allegations sought to be

established.

In re Henson , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005)(quoting Slomowitz

v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). ÐAlthough

this standard of proof may be met where the evidence is in

conflict, it seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous.Ñ

Westinghouse Elect. Corp. v. Shuler Bros. , 590 So. 2d 986, 989

(Fla. 1991).

6 6 . S ection 1012.796 describes the disciplinary process for

educators, and provides in pertinent part:

(6) Upon the finding of probable cause,

the commissioner shall file a formal

complaint and prosecute the complaint

pursuant to the provisions of chapter 120.

An administrative law judge shall be

assigned by the Division of Administrative

Hearings of the Dep artment of Management

Services to hear the complaint if there are

disputed issues of material fact. The

administrative law judge shall make

recommendations in accordance with the

provisions of subsection (7) to the

appropriate Education Practices Commissi on

panel which shall conduct a formal review

of such recommendations and other pertinent

information and issue a final order. The

commission shall consult with its legal

counsel prior to issuance of a final order.

(7) A panel of the commission shall enter

a final order either dismissing the

complaint or imposing one or more of the

following penalties:

(a) Denial of an application for a

teaching certificate or for an

administrative or supervisory endorsement

on a tea ching certificate. The denial may

provide that the applicant may not reapply

for certification, and that the department

may refuse to consider that applicantÓs

application, for a specified period of time

or permanently.

(b) Revocation or suspension of a

certificate.

(c) Imposition of an administrative fine

not to exceed $2,000 for each count or

separate offense.

(d) Placement of the teacher,

administrator, or supervisor on probation

for a period of time and subject to such

conditions as the commission m ay specify,

including requiring the certified teacher,

administrator, or supervisor to complete

additional appropriate college courses or

work with another certified educator, with

the administrative costs of monitoring the

probation assessed to the educat or placed

on probation. An educator who has been

placed on probation shall, at a minimum:

1. Immediately notify the investigative

office in the Department of Education upon

employment or termination of employment in

the state in any public or private position

requiring a Florida educatorÓs certificate.

2. Have his or her immediate supervisor

sub mit annual performance reports to the

investigative office in the Department of

Education.

3. Pay to the commission within the first

6 months of each probation year the

administrative costs of monitoring

probation assessed to the educator.

4. Violate no law and shall fully comply

with all district school board policies,

school rules, and State Board of Education

rules.

5. Satisfactorily perform his or her

assigned duties in a competent,

professional manner.

6. Bear all costs of complying with the

terms of a final order entered by the

commission.

(e) Restriction of the authorized scope of

practice of the teacher, administrator, or

supervisor.

(f) Reprimand of the teacher,

administrator, or supervisor in writing,

with a copy to be placed in the

certifica tion file of such person.

(g) Imposition of an administrative

sanction, upon a person whose teaching

certificate has expired, for an act or acts

committed while that person possessed a

teaching certificate or an expired

certificate subject to late renewal , which

sanction bars that person from applying for

a new certificate for a period of 10 years

or less, or permanently.

(h) Refer the teacher, administrator, or

supervisor to the recovery network program

provided in s. 1012.798 under such terms

and conditions as the commission may

specify.

6 7 . The Administrative Complaint makes the following

factual allegations against Respondent:

3. On or about September 13, 2013,

Respondent made an inappropriate comment

when he told a colleague, D.B., Ðat least

you are not Mexican,Ñ after D.B. informed

Respondent that she is Venezuelan.

4. During September and October 2013 ,

Respondent used the information provided on

the schoolÓs emergency phone list to

contact the same newly hired, female

colleague, D.B. Respondent sent

inappropriate, unsolicited text messages to

D.B. when he engaged in the following text

message conversa tions:

(On or about September 26, 2013)

Respondent: Ðare you mad or upset? You

look angry when i passÑ

D.B.: ÐThat must just be my face at the

time. HahaÑ

Respondent: Ðso that would mean you are not

angry with me for contacting you? i did

everything I could no to.Ñ

(D.B. did not respond.)

(On or about October 28, 2013)

Respondent: Ðdo you have any interest at

all? i would greatly appreciate a reply

either yes or no. i need to know so i can

keep you on my mind or get you off. with

sugar on top ple ase say somethingÑ

D.B.: ÐNo IÓm sorry IÓm a very private

person . I prefer to keep my private life

separate from my career.Ñ

Respondent: Ðthank you. i do think you

are very beautiful and it is nice to see

you ev eryday. A perfect and let me d own

easy r eply. everything is coolÑ

D.B.: ÐThank you, see you at school.Ñ

Respondent: Ðhey, I just realized i am a

private person too. do you have an

exception for that? just trying a little

harder.Ñ

D.B.: ÐNo, IÓm sorry[,] also I am already

in a relationship.Ñ

Respondent: i figured that. how could you

not be? i hope you dont feel weird seeing

me at school knowing what you know. i

thought i had a 1 in a million shot for you

and i was happy with those odds. i

apologize for this, i think about you too

much an d then drink and so this. i should

know better but it is the way you look.Ñ

D.B.: ÐPlease stop texting me.Ñ

Respondent: Ðsorry, no more.Ñ

5. RespondentÓs text messages and behavior

made his colleague, D.B., feel

uncomfortable, embarrassed, and

intimidat ed.

6. On or about December 9, 2013, as a

result of RespondentÓs behavior alleged in

paragraph 4 of this Administrative

Complaint, Respondent was issued a letter

of reprimand by the Escambia County School

District.

7. On or about December 11, 2013, whe n

Respondent was informed that a female

colleague, A.C. , made a complaint against

him, Respondent provided a written,

threatening statement to his principal and

requested that the principle provide the

statement to A.C. RespondentÓs written

statement prov ided in pertinent part:

ÐI have multiple pictures of [A.C.]

naked that she sent me during the

month of April, 2012.

- one is of her posing in a bathroom

fully naked.

- one is of her bending over and taking

a picture of her rear using the

mirror.

- one is of her sunbathing naked (face

not shown), caesarean scar is visible.

- one is of her sunbathing at the

purple parrot just showing her body

and feet.

I have sexual emails that she and I

exchanged and have printed all

pictures of her.

I want [A.C.] to contact [ the

D istrictÓs investigator] in the

presence of the principal and she can

leave a message if he does not answer.

I want her to admit that she lied

about her statement.

When [the DistrictÓs investigator]

contacts me stating he received this

clarificatio n, then I will not pursue

this matter.

I f [A.C.] refuses, then the pictures

and emails will be delivered to the

District.Ñ

8. As a result of RespondentÓs conduct

alleged in paragraph 7 of this

Administrative Complaint, the Escambia

County School Distric t suspended

RespondentÓs employment for a period of

three days without pay.

68. Petitioner has proven the allegations in the

Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence, with

two minor exceptions. With respect to the comment Ðat least you

are not Mexican,Ñ alleged in paragraph three of the

Administrative Complaint, the evidence indicates a slight

variation in RespondentÓs response. He has a different memory

of what he said, and Ms. BraoÓs account of his apology by e - mail

is consistent wit h his claim . Whatever the exact verbiage, he

apologized the same day as the comment (which was in fact a

clumsy attempt to make contact with Ms. Brao), and she professed

no offense taken by it. The interchange in paragraph three does

not factor into the conclusions regarding any discipline that

should be taken against Respondent.

69. In addition, with respect to the allegations in

paragraph seven, the evidence showed that Ms. Cravatt did not

make a complaint against him, either in the Spring of 2012, or

in November 2013. She simply answered the questions asked of

her .

70 . Based upon these allegations, Petitioner charged

Respondent with violating section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j),

Florida Statutes (2013) , and Florida Administrative Code Rules

6A - 10.081 (4)(c), (5)(d), (5)(f) , and (5)(o) . Section

1012.795(1) provides in pertinent part:

(1) The Education Practices Commission may

suspend the educator certificate of any

person as defined in s. 1012.01(2) or (3)

for up to 5 years, thereby denying that

person the right to teach or otherwise be

employed by a district school board or

public school in any capacity requiring

direct contact with students for that

period of time, after which the holder may

return to teaching as provided in

subsection (4); may revoke the educator

certificate of any person, thereby denying

that person the right to teach or otherwise

be employed by a district school board or

public school in any capacity requiring

direct contact with students for up to 10

years, with reinstatement subject to the

provisions of subsection (4); may revoke

permanently the educator certificate of any

person thereby denying that person the

right to teach or otherwise be employed by

a district school board or public school in

any capacity requiring direct contact with

students; may suspend the educator

certificate, upon an order of the court or

no tice by the Department of Revenue

relating to the payment of child support;

or may impose any other penalty provided by

law, if the person:

* * *

(g) Upon investigation, has been found

guilty of personal conduct that seriously

reduces that personÓs effectiveness as an

employee of the district school board.

* * *

(j) Has violated the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession pr escribed by State Board of

Education rules.

* * *

(4)(a) An educator certificate that has

been suspended under this section is

automatically reinstated at the end of the

suspension period, provided the certificate

did not expire during the period of

sus pension. If the certificate expired

during the period of suspension, the holder

of the former certificate may secure a new

certificate by making application therefor

and by meeting the certification

requirements of the state board current at

the time of t he application for the new

certificate . . . .

(b) A person whose educator certificate

has been revoked under this section may

apply for a new certificate at the

expiration of that period of ineligibility

fixed by the Education Practices Commission

by making application therefor and by

meeting the certifi cation requirements of

the state board current at the time of the

application for the new certificate.

71 . The relevant portions of rule 6A - 10.081 provide the

following:

(1) The following disciplinary rule shall

constitute the Principles of Professiona l

Conduct for the Education Profession in

Florida.

(2) Violation of any of these principles

shall subject the individual to revocation

or suspension of the individual educatorÓs

certificate, or the other penalties as

provided by law.

* * *

(4) Obligatio n to the public requires that

the individual:

* * *

(c) Shall not use institutional privileges

for personal gain or advantage.

* * *

(5) Obligation to the profession of

education requires that the individual:

* * *

(d) Shall not engage in harassme nt or

discriminatory conduct which unreasonably

interferes with an individualÓs performance

of professional or work responsibilities or

with the orderly processes of education or

which creates a hostile, intimidating,

abusive, offensive, or oppressive

envi ronment; and, further, shall make

reasonable effort to assure that each

individual is protected from such

harassment or discrimination.

* * *

(f) Shall not use coercive means or

promise special treatment to influence

professional judgments of colleagu es.

* * *

(o) Shall seek no reprisal against any

individual who has reported any allegation

of a violation of the Florida School Code

or State Board of Education Rules as

defined in Section 1012.795(1), F.S.

7 2 . Count 1 of the Administrative Complain t charges

Respondent with violating section 1012.795(1)(g), by being found

guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that personÓs

effectiveness as an employee of the school board. In its

Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner has elected to

volu ntarily withdraw this Count. In light of this decision by

the Commissioner, no further discussion of Count 1 is necessary.

73. Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint alleges that

Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(j), by violating the

Principl es of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession

as prescribed by State Board of Education rules. Those

Principles are found in rule 6A - 10.081. As discussed below,

inasmuch as RespondentÓs conduct violates one or more of Counts

3 - 6, it is conclude d that Petitioner has demonstrated a

violation of Count 2 by clear and convincing evidence.

74. Count 3 alleges that Respondent violated rule 6A -

10.081(4)(c) by using institutional privileges for personal gain

or advantage. The evidence is clear and co nvincing that

Respondent accessed Ms. BraoÓs personal cell phone number by

using the school emergency phone list in order to contact her

without her permission. He does not dispute doing so. The

texts were not school - related in any way, in that they were not

sent for any educational purpose or related to any school

activity or in response to any emergency affecting students.

The sole purpose of the texts was to attempt to establish some

kind of personal relationship with Ms. Brao, notwithstanding

that it was unsolicited and unwanted. Count 3 has been proven

by clear and convincing evidence.

75. Count 4 charges Respondent with violating rule 6A -

10.081(5)(d), which prohibits engaging in Ð harassment or

discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes with an

individualÓs performance of professional or work

responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or

which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or

oppressive environment .Ñ Petitioner has proven that Respondent

violated r ule 6A - 10.081(5)(d), with respect to both Ms. Brao and

Ms. Cravatt. RespondentÓs unwanted texts and repeated pursuit

of Ms. Brao through those texts frightened her and made it

difficult for her to bring her full attention and abilities to

her first year o f teaching. She felt she had to limit her time

at school and change her habits in order to avoid him. With

respect to Ms. Cravatt, RespondentÓs demands that Ms. Moore

speak to her and have her ÐclarifyÑ her statements were so

upsetting that a substitute had be obtained for her classes, and

she was suspended with pay while the allegations were addressed.

Count 4 has been proven by clear and convincing evidence.

76. Count 5 charges Respondent with violating rule 6A -

10.081( 5 )(f), by using coercive means o r promised special

treatment to influence professional judgments of colleagues.

Respondent perceived that Ms. Cravatt was untruthful when

questioned about him, and refused to believe that she had not

come forward on her own to complain about him. As a re sult, he

created a document with humiliating and very private information

about her , and shared that information with her employer in an

attempt to get her to change her statement with respect to a

District investigation. Count 5 has been proven by clear and

convincing evidence.

77. Finally, Count 6 charges Respondent with violating

rule 6A - 10.081(5)(o) , which prohibits an educator from seeking

reprisal against Ðany individual who has reported any allegation

of a violation of the Florida School Code or S tate Board of

Education Rules as defined in Section 1012.795(1).Ñ In

determining whether Respondent violated this provision, it does

not matter whether Ms. Cravatt was the instigator of an

investigation, as Respondent mistakenly believed her to be, or

whe ther she simply reported information that she knew in

response to questions posed to her. The Oxford Dictionary

defines the term ÐreportÑ as including, to Ðgive a spoken or

written account of something that one h as observed, heard, done,

or investigated,Ñ and to Ðmake a formal statement or complaint

about (someone or something) to the necessary authority.Ñ

www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/

american_english/report?q=reported. Here, in response to an

inquiry by Mr. Marsh, Ms. Cravatt reported what she knew

regarding the Groupwise e - mails sent to her by Respondent. She

did not reveal other details of their shortlived relationship

and those questions were not asked. Her statements were used in

part to support a finding that Respondent engaged in con duct in

violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Despite

RespondentÓs assertions that he just wanted the truth to come

out, his actions were clearly vind ictive and aimed at hurting

Ms. Cravatt for what he believed to be untruthful statements to

the District investigator. He went so far as to say he wanted

her to worry for the rest of her life. Count 6 has been

demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence.

78. The Education Practices Commission has adopted

disciplinary guidelines for the imposit ion of penalties

authorized by section 1012.796, which are contained in rule 6B -

11.007(2). The guidelines for each Count charged and for which

the Commissioner has proven a violation are as follows:

¤ For using a position for personal gain:

probation to revocation.

¤ For harassment or discrimination which

interferes with an individualÓs performance

or work: reprimand to revocation.

¤ For retaliation for

reporting/interference with

investigation/failure to cooperate with an

investigation: suspension to revocation.

¤ For other violations of the Prin ciples of

Professional Conduct: probation to

revocation.

79. Rule 6B - 11.007(2) provides that the guidelines shall

be interpreted to include probation, a letter of reprimand, the

Recovery Network Progra m, restriction of the scope of practice,

fines, and administrative fees and/or costs. Rule 6B - 11.007(3)

also includes aggravating and mitigating factors to be

considered in determining an appropriate penalty and determining

whether a deviation from the gu idelines should be imposed.

Those aggravating and mitigating factors include the following:

(a) The severity of the offense;

(b) The danger to the public;

(c) The number of repetitions of offenses;

(d) The length of time since the violation;

(e) The number of times the educator has been

previously disciplined by the Commission;

(f) The length of time the educator has

practiced and the contribution as an educator;

(g) The actual damage, physical or otherwise,

caused by the violation;

(h) The deterre nt effect of the penalty

imposed;

(i) The effect of the penalty upon the

educatorÓs livelihood;

(j) Any effort of rehabilitation by the

educator;

(k) The actual knowledge of the educator

pertaining to the violation;

(l) Employment status;

(m) Attempt s by the educator to correct or stop

the violation or refusal by the educator to

correct or stop the violation;

(n) Related violations against the educator in

another state including findings of guilt or

innocence, penalties imposed and penalties

served;

(o) Actual negligence of the educator

pertaining to any violation;

(p) Penalties imposed for related offenses

under subsection (2) above;

(q) Pecuniary benefit or self - gain inuring to

the educator;

(r) Degree of physical and mental harm to a

student or a child;

(s) Present status of physical and/or mental

condition contributing to the violation

including recovery from addiction;

(t) Any other relevant mitigating or

aggravating factors under the circumstances.

80. No evidence was presented to indica te that Respondent

has been disciplined previously. There are multiple offenses

found in this case, and RespondentÓs actions had a significant

negative effect on other teachers at HCES. Moreover, Respondent

showed no indicatio n that he was aware of the e xtent to which

his behavior crossed boundaries. With these guidelines in mind ,

for Count 2, no penalty is recommended, as the violations are

addressed in Counts 3 - 6. For Count 3, it is recommended that

the Commission impose two years of probation, a repr imand, and a

$500 fine. For Count 4, it is noted that Respondent is guilty

of violating this provision with respect to two different

courses of conduct, affecting two different teachers.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the Commission impose a one -

yea r suspension for Count 4 . Count 5 and 6 essentially address

the same conduct, i.e., RespondentÓs threats regarding his past

relationship with Ms. Cravatt and the potential publishing of

pictures and texts in his possession to get her to change her

stateme nts about him. The minimum penalty for Count 6 is

suspension. Therefore, it is recommended that for Counts 5 and

6, the Commission impose a one - year suspension for this

violation, followed by a one - year probationary period, a

condition of which is contin uing education with the number of

hours the Commission deems appropriate, with an emphasis on

professionalism and boundaries.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Educatio n Practi ces

Commission enter a f inal o rder finding Respondent guilty of

violating Counts 2 - 6 in the Administrative Complaint. It is

further recommended that RespondentÓs license be suspended for a

period of two years, followed by probation for three years; that

h e receive a reprimand and an administrative fine of $500, due

two year s from the issuance of the Final Order in this case; and

that as a condition of probation , Respondent be required to

complete such continuing education as determined appropriate by

the Commission, with an emphasis on professionalism and

boundaries.

DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June , 2015 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LISA SHEARER NELSON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with th e Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 5th day of June , 2015 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ Ms. Cravatt was unsure whether the encounter in the car had

occurred when she met with Ms. Moore. However, she testified as

to the date of the incident, presuma bly based on the date of her

cousinÓs wedding, which she had attended earlier in the day.

Mr. Madison testified that the whole ÐrelationshipÑ occurred

over approximately two weeks, and the e - mails indicate that it

started approximately April 5 . Ms. Moore testified that

Ms. Farish came to her in early May, and identified the date as

either May 11 or 12. From these accounts, it is most likely

that the incident in the c ar had already occurred and

Ms. Cravatt was trying to distance herself from it.

2/ The re are no allegations in the Administrative Complaint

regarding Mr. MadisonÓs supposed relationship with Ms. Manthei,

and no evidence was presented in an attempt to prove whether the

rumors were in fact true. Evidence was presented simply to show

that the rumors existed and how those rumors affected the

atmosphere at the school. Mr. Madison testified that he has a

relationship with Ms. Manthei presently, but did not have a

sexual relationship with her while they were both at HCES.

Whether or not they had a relationship at the time is not

relevant to the issues in this case.

3/ The Facebook messages were received into evidence and are

somewhat troubling. They include statements such as Ðcocaine is

a hell of a drug,Ñ Ðbeauty and kindness are not common a nd I

have cross ed the decency boundaries before,Ñ and ÐFantasy lines

and reality lines are very blurry for me at times.Ñ However,

nothing related to the Facebook messages is charged in the

Administrative Complaint. They are relevant only in terms of

the atmosphere existing at the school with respect to

Respondent , and their possible inclusion in the basis for

discipline by the School District .

4/ At hearing, Ms. Cravatt admitted having sex with Madison and

to having sent the pictures and e - mails, but co ntinued to deny

having a ÐrelationshipÑ with Mr. Madison. She instead referred

to it as a Ðsexual encounter,Ñ so felt justified in not

admitting to a relationship. Given that the exchange of e - mails

and pictures, and the one sexual episode spanned a two - week

period, it was a relationship, albeit an extremely short one,

and Ms. CravattÓs characterization is most likely wishful

thinking.

5/ In the original, the bracketed name is Moore. When read in

context , it appears to be a scrivenerÓs error.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director

Education Practices Commission

Department of Education

Suite 316

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

David Holder, Esquire

J. David Holder, P.A.

387 Lakeside Drive

Defu niak Springs, Florida 32435

(eServed)

Branden M. Vicari, Esquire

Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A.

Suite 110

29605 U.S. Highway 19 North

Clearwater, Florida 33761

(eServed)

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suit e 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief

Bureau of Professional Practices Services

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 224 - E

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 040 0

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue t he Final Order in this case.